Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and videofluoroscopy: Does examination type influence perception of pharyngeal residue severity?

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Paula Leslie, Dr Michael DrinnanORCiD


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the type of instrumental swallowing examination (Fibreoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) or videofluoroscopy) influences perception of post-swallow pharyngeal residue. Design: Prospective, single-blind assessment of residue from simultaneous videofluoroscopy and FEES recordings. All raters were blind to participant details, to the pairing of the videofluoroscopy and FEES examinations and to the other raters' scores. Setting: Tertiary specialist ENT teaching hospital. Participants: Fifteen adult participants consecutively recruited; seven women and eight men aged between 22 and 73, mean age 53. All participants underwent one FEES examination and one videofluoroscopy examination performed simultaneously. Inclusion criteria: referred to speech and language therapy for assessment of dysphagia. Exclusion criteria: nil by mouth or judged to be at high risk of aspiration. Main outcome measures: The FEES and videofluoroscopy examinations were recorded simultaneously. Fifteen speech and language therapists independently scored pharyngeal residue as none, coating, mild, moderate or severe. All examinations were scored twice by all raters. Results: Intra- and inter-rater agreement were similar for both examinations. There were significant differences between FEES and videofluoroscopy pharyngeal residue severity scores (anova, P < 0.001). FEES residue scores were consistently higher than videofluoroscopy residue scores. Conclusions: Pharyngeal residue was consistently perceived to be greater from FEES than from videofluoroscopy. These findings have significant clinical implications as FEES and videofluoroscopy findings are used to judge aspiration risk and to make recommendations for oral intake. Further research is required to examine the impact of FEES and videofluoroscopy examinations on treatment decisions. © 2006 The Authors.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Kelly AM, Leslie P, Beale T, Payten C, Drinnan MJ

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Clinical Otolaryngology

Year: 2006

Volume: 31

Issue: 5

Pages: 425-432

ISSN (print): 1749-4478

ISSN (electronic): 1749-4486

Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell


DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-4486.2006.01292.x

PubMed id: 17014453


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric